Respected Prof Vladimir,

Einstein did not like and support Bigbang based cosmology!!!

I reproduced some of your words of wisdom from "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community?".

.......................Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology....................................

Even after 20 years these concepts are same and they are ruling the world like some dictator ship.....

I was just hoping for the last 35 to 40 years that the funding will be released from dictatorship ,fears will be reduced ad freedom of speech will come into light someday........

I am just waiting..................................................................

Respectfully,

Snp.gupta

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Today, when science, primarily fundamental science, is experiencing a crisis of philosophical foundations, support for research and researchers in at least three alternative areas is needed. And this primarily refers to cosmology. Humanity will not be able to develop steadily when science says that "In the beginning was the Big Bang ..."... I think that children at school studying Astronomy will not understand this and will ask questions that cosmologists cannot answer. Today, we all need patience, hope and great mutual understanding.

I wish you success!

Vladimir

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

this is a very useful essay and all so true. A new theory is needed to serve Humanity, not the author or his scientific circle that defends boundaries.

Thanks for the essay that is recommend.

Best regards

Manfred U.E.Pohl

    Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

    your statement "A theory in pure Mathematics and a theory in Physics have different requirements

    and outcomes. Apure Mathematical theory may not have any physical basis and out-comes

    also may not have any physical significances." is part to the debate of representation. Mathematics is simply a language that may be used to communicate ideas of different category of knowing. You are correct to point out the differences between pure mathematical theory and the theory of physics in relation of course to decidability, computability and predictability. This representation problem was central to the debate between Russell and Brouwer and between the intuitionist school and formalist school in the use of classical mathematics under classical paradigm of thought. Physical phenomenon must not be forced into obaying mathematical laws. Mathematics must be used to present physical laws and behavior.

    KOFI KISSI DOMPERE.

      Respected Prof Vladimir,

      Wonderful song on hope!!!! The song rightly tells us that in reality we cosmologists are in fog and cold buzzard of dictator ship. This song is appropriate for our situation!!! All the young children are taught about Bigbang, as though it is right. This aspect pinches me......

      Best Regards

      =snp.gupta

      Respected Prof Sorli,

      You wrote an excellant essay on Cosmology, you are correct in saying that measured data is correct than calculated data. When calculated data and if it is a predicted data by a model and if it matches with measured data then that model is also correct.

      Blackholes and Bigbang are singularities with infinite densities and are not possible. CMB is nothing but Star and Galaxy radiation. Astronomical Jets are formed with particles that are emitted by sun and stars and they travel in parallel to galaxy plane and bend perpendicularly at galaxy center.

      There a Densemass at galaxy center not a blackhole. It is having huge mass finite density to support the Galaxy disk, but not with infinite density.

      What do you say ....???

      Best

      Dear Sir

      Mail is not going to your id....

      contact@manfred pohl.de

      do you have any other ID? I just gave you highest of appreciation to your essay, best wishes

      =snp

      Dear Professor,

      See my post on your essay and check your mail also...

      Best

      =snp.gupta

      Dear Mr. Gupta:

      Thanks for your time and comments on my essay.

      You have presented good ideas for requirements of an acceptable theory in your essay. I agree with you that Big Bang is not a complete and correct theory. My paper presents an alternative to the Big Bang paralyzed by numerous unresolved paradoxes.

      Good luck with your essay.

      Best Regards

      Avtar

        Dear Satyavarapu,

        A pleasure to find you here again and read your highly agreeable essay. Our good agreement from the past is continued, and I appreciate your clear, direct and concise English, in the spirit of the essay itself, and underlying theory.

        I find very little to criticise, but a few queries. While I agree common conceptions of dark energy and matter are badly misguided, the fact is there are a whole tranche of effects and findings which need explanation, building up since Faraday's 'action at a distance', Coulomb, Casimir etc, and the well evidenced 'pair production' (which I'm sure you won't suggest is from 'nothing!) I think you'll like my very simple derivation of these simplifying much of physics!

        The only other thing I'd say is that it's a shame, given the space you had, not to expand on HOW the simulations refer to 'solve' the list you give. i.e. what derives the 'force behind expansion' which I've derivved with a soecific physical mechnism and shown the evidence (as well as it's entirely CYCLIC and time limited character!) So many will likely dismiss those as empty claims. But I know it's hard to do so. I did so for a key range in my essay and came right up against the length limit.

        I'm sure you'll appreciate mine again, going even more fundamental than the DU for new foundations which should help ALL coherent models. I greatly look forward to your comments or questions.

        Very best.

        Peter

          Hi Sab,

          Thanks for your comments and for the Good luck wishes.

          Please check your essay and mail for further comments

          Best

          =snp.gupta

          Respected Prof Piter Jackson,

          Thank you for your Wonderful words of appreciation, and even on my English too...

          Your words......

          I find very little to criticise, but a few queries. While I agree common conceptions of dark energy and matter are badly misguided, the fact is there are a whole tranche of effects and findings which need explanation, building up since Faraday's 'action at a distance', Coulomb, Casimir etc, and the well evidenced 'pair production' (which I'm sure you won't suggest is from 'nothing!) I think you'll like my very simple derivation of these simplifying much of physics!............

          My reply.............

          No no, I dont suggest from nothing!!!

          You saw my paper on frequency up-shifting and energy to mass conversion in FQXi 2017 contest. That will be the answer...............

          Your words.............

          The only other thing I'd say is that it's a shame, given the space you had, not to expand on HOW the simulations refer to 'solve' the list you give. i.e. what derives the 'force behind expansion' which I've derivved with a soecific physical mechnism and shown the evidence (as well as it's entirely CYCLIC and time limited character!) So many will likely dismiss those as empty claims. But I know it's hard to do so. I did so for a key range in my essay and came right up against the length limit..................

          My reply............

          All those are solved papers published earlier, all papers are available in internet as well as in my blog.

          You can select any of the topics or all of them one by one.... and we will discuss in any detail that is required.

          Your words................

          I'm sure you'll appreciate mine again, going even more fundamental than the DU for new foundations which should help ALL coherent models. I greatly look forward to your comments or questions........................

          Please check your mail and your essay for my comments.

          Best reagrds

          =snp.gupta

          Hello S.N.P. Gupta,

          I would like to thank you for your kind comments on my essay. I read your essay and thought it was very interesting. I think there are many points which both of us agree on. I wrote a (somewhat) extensive response to you and hope that you see it. Please feel free to email me at anytime.

          Best regards,

          Dale C. Gillman

            Dear Gillman

            I could not post your document in my essay, some technical error came. You may please copy paste it from here to there.

            Best Regards

            =snp.gupta

            Dear Mr. Gupta Ji

            Again thanks for your comments and congratulations on the excellent essay.

            I read your essay, website, and references. It is amazing to see that the conclusions of your Dynamic Universe Model match closely with my Universal Relativity Model in that No Big Bang happened and the fundamental reality involves free mass-energy-mass conversion leading to an eternal universe.

            However, I have a few questions and if you could please clarify:

            1. Is there fundamental uncertainty in the universe, how do you mathematically explain Heisenberg uncertainty?

            2. Do you mathematical explain or predict collapse of the wave function that leads to probabilistic reality?

            3. How do you explain Multiverses if any?

            4. How do you explain consciousness via your model?

            Best Regards

            Avtar Singh

            Document sent by mail by Author Dale Carl Gillman

            =================================================

            Hello there, S.N.P. Gupta,

            Thank you so very much for your high regard. Your feedback is very kind and your compliments are greatly appreciated. I'm sorry that my replying comments are coming relatively delayed. Perhaps there is a time difference between where you are and where I am. I have recently re-uploaded my essay (newly edited); do you mind rating that one please? I am trying to get my old one taken off of the website. To begin:

            A) "...A theory in pure Mathematics and a theory in Physics have different requirements and outcomes. Apure Mathematical theory may not have any physical basis and out-comes also may not have any physical significances..." I think that our essays are somewhat similar.

            B) I agree with A.1. "...With a predetermined idea that the theory should behave in some manner, religious feelings etc, must be avoided while forming a new theory. As far as possible, the new theory should be based on scientific findings and experimental results..."

            C) Perhaps I am misunderstanding A.2. "...It is a common thing that there is some fear about teachers, professors and superior bosses..."

            D) A.3. I think that this is a great point, I agree and think that it's very unfortunate. ("...Such boundaries do exist and are being imposed by institutions, teachers and professors. Funding and allocation of seats and vacancies are inside these boundaries. It is well known generally that the Professors don't accept students who work outside these boundaries or provide funding. Many times, they don't accept that there is some science beyond these boundaries...")

            E) I also agree with A.4.

            F) I must disagree with the following "...A.5. Don't make the mathematics too complex with thousands of multiple possible solutions...). Depending on the proposed theory (of quantum gravity in particular) the mathematics required is highly complex. M-theory (for instance) requires the extra spatial dimensions and an implication that is highly complex is where one would see the Holographic Principle emerge. "...All your time will be wasted which was spent for developing such system of mathematics to describe a physical system..." For instance such proposals include the proposition that posited extra dimensions exist and exist at the Plank scale and are tightly curled up. Imaginary (and complex) numbers have vast implications in the [hard] sciences.

            G) I absolutely agree with B.1. Personally, I think that selfish financial motives are the primary obstacles to everything from world peace to a unification of gravity with the rest of physics.

            H) You made a wonderful point in B.7. This [philosophy of mind] is my primary area of concentration within philosophy.

            I) Perhaps I'm misunderstanding C.1. but are you listing the criteria for a newly revised requirements that would allow for a new cosmological paradigm?

            J) In C.2. "...Concept should come out from the depth of truth..." This was unclear, as was a definition for "perfection".

            K) I don't know the nature of time "...Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only..."

            Additionally, on "...I think I can add few words........ the ultimate of the quest in philosophy is very difficult to understand. Describing in words is very difficult........ what do you say?" Language most certainly is a tool (it may or may not be unique to human beings). In general, I think articulating one's thoughts is always challenging. I also do not think that English is the most sufficient language to convey oneself.

            Finally, one completely separate conversation topic is the matter of allowing individuals who might be capable of studying such discourse as the foundations of mathematics (and the philosophy of maths, or "metamathematics"). Scholars who study rigorous matters tend to be underfunded and making a living (in said cases) is (usually) a nuisance as this hinders academics from making contributions and fully investing their time in solving the universe's most challenging questions.

            Indeed, I will rate your essay highly. Thanks again,

            Dale Gillman

            Respected Professor Avatar Singh Sab

            Thank you for your post...

            For Point 1&2.....

            This Dynamic Universe Model explains Cosmology and astrophysics at present. It was developed single handedly over the last 30 to 35 years. It is yet to go into quantum side of the physics to answer your questions. I hope you will help me out in these subjects...............At this age only I can only pray God to provide strength for doing these....

            For point 3.....There are no multiverses in Dynamic Universe Model.

            For point 4.....The Universal Gravitational Force (UGF) acting on each and every body/mass is consciousness in Dynamic Universe Model. This UGF vector is nothing but sum of all vectorial Gravitational forces acting on a body at the considered instant of time and position in space for that setup of the Universe at that instant. It may please be noted that positions of planets stars and Galaxies etc change Dynamically depending on UGF.

            Hope this is ok,

            Best

            =snp

              Dear Gupta Ji

              Since your essay does not address uncertainty and probability or undecidability, and collapse of the wave function, it is relevant only to cosmology and irrelevant to the main theme of this essay competition.

              With regard to cosmology, how does the Dynamic Universe model describes the anti-gravity or expansive force to balance the gravity or attractive force? How does it predict the dark energy and the observed expansion of the universe or the cosmological constant?

              What is the amount net total energy of the universe? Big Bang model assumes that the net energy is ZERO.

              Further consciousness is anti-gravity not gravity as you describe. Gravity is Unconsciousness.

              Best Regards

              Avtar Singh

              Dear Professor ji,

              The starting sentence of your essay say that you are into cosmology........

              This paper describes a potential missing physics that leads not only to the artifact undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability but also to the current widely known paradoxes of physics/cosmology such as dark energy, dark matter, multiverse,.............

              As dark energy dark matter and multi verse are cosmological problems not quantum physical problems.

              I just gave the example as "Dynamic Universe Model" for my essay which discusses the morality of any scientific theory should follow.

              I will continue in my next post ....

              Best Regards

              =snp